Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I said in relationship to the Toe not necessarily to the second law. To the point of the second law what you said completely makes sense. Its a well argued point that has been regurgitated by many.

Now to the point of probability I would assume what I have stated up above should make sense to most educated people. From the start of the possibility of abiogenesis (start of life) on earth to the time we know we had life it would have been a shorter time than going from unicellular life to multicellular forms. So less time for ambiogenesis to occur on earth than multicellular life?

Does that sound logical to you and if it does please explain it to me.

Now I realize that the Earth had gone through some rough conditions but I would have predicted as a scientist that mutagenesis in basic lifeforms would have occured at a faster rate and in more organisms than what did.

Did evolution have a hiccup?

Do you think that argues for Toe?

Do you think its interesting and is more advantegous to us as posters to consider than these ID arguments against evolution that you are presenting?

In your opening post you said the pursuit of truth was the main goal here or something to that degree and please understand that my intention is not to hijack your thread. Its quite the opposite but these are questions that I have come up with just for funsies and wonder what might the possible answers be because in my mind it doesn't add up.

I don't think that the change from unicellular to multicellular taking longer than abiogenesis means anything for the theory of evolution. abiogenesis is not evolution. They are not governed by the same process.

I still don't understand why you think it should have gone faster.

Originally Posted by MrPoon

man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

If you believe this publication http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-sug...ar-life-1.9810 then in the lab we can recreate multicellular events in less than 60 days. Now I will be the first to admit that recreating something in the lab doesn't mean this is what happens in nature but it does show that it is plausible to some degree.

Hopefully that gives a better backdrop for why I see a paradox here.

That wasn't published in the Nature and for good reason, it's bad science.

If you read the actual paper, the study doesn't control for various confounding variables.

For instance, they used yeast for this study and yeast used to be multi-cellular so this could merely be the re-emergence of previously evolved and currently dormant behavior. Or the fact that they forced genetic drift by selecting for bottom-clumpers rather than merely using gravity as the sole selective pressure as they claimed.

I said in relationship to the Toe not necessarily to the second law. To the point of the second law what you said completely makes sense. Its a well argued point that has been regurgitated by many.

Now to the point of probability I would assume what I have stated up above should make sense to most educated people. From the start of the possibility of abiogenesis (start of life) on earth to the time we know we had life it would have been a shorter time than going from unicellular life to multicellular forms. So less time for ambiogenesis to occur on earth than multicellular life?

Does that sound logical to you and if it does please explain it to me.

Now I realize that the Earth had gone through some rough conditions but I would have predicted as a scientist that mutagenesis in basic lifeforms would have occured at a faster rate and in more organisms than what did.

Did evolution have a hiccup?

Do you think that argues for Toe?

Do you think its interesting and is more advantegous to us as posters to consider than these ID arguments against evolution that you are presenting?

In your opening post you said the pursuit of truth was the main goal here or something to that degree and please understand that my intention is not to hijack your thread. Its quite the opposite but these are questions that I have come up with just for funsies and wonder what might the possible answers be because in my mind it doesn't add up.

Or simply because the environment was not suitable for multicellular life until a certain time period. Just look at all the unicellular species found in extreme environments.

I don't think that the change from unicellular to multicellular taking longer than abiogenesis means anything for the theory of evolution. abiogenesis is not evolution. They are not governed by the same process.

I still don't understand why you think it should have gone faster.

I am not arguing that evolution is abiogenesis. Its not, however the probability of either one happening is what I am comparing and just because they have different factors doesn't make one less likely to happen vs the other.

As far as why I think it should have gone faster I think you have to some background into molecular biology and geneitcs to understand this.

The mutagenesis that would have had to of taken place isn't extensive. The code was small and not very complex and the regulator factors in play should have promoted the off chance of varation in the species. A varation that would promote multicellularity.

The person who published the paper I posted thinks its should have been more likely as well and he works in that specific field of biology.

That wasn't published in the Nature and for good reason, it's bad science.

If you read the actual paper, the study doesn't control for various confounding variables.

For instance, they used yeast for this study and yeast used to be multi-cellular so this could merely be the re-emergence of previously evolved and currently dormant behavior. Or the fact that they forced genetic drift by selecting for bottom-clumpers rather than merely using gravity as the sole selective pressure as they claimed.

Do you even know of PNAS and can you find me one quote from a scientist that says its a bad journal publishing bad science?

When did bakers yeast evolve from multicellular life? Answer that and you will find the reason why actual people (evolutionary biologist) not in that paper suggest its relevant while you call it bad science. But hey what do they know right..

Do you even know of PNAS and can you find me one quote from a scientist that says its a bad journal publishing bad science?

When did bakers yeast evolve from multicellular life? Answer that and you will find the reason why actual people (evolutionary biologist) not in that paper suggest its relevant while you call it bad science. But hey what do they know right..

Lynn Margulis has made outstanding contributions to science, endosymbiosis being the best example, but her latest ideas are nonsense.

And seriously? You're acting as if you found an obscure study from Zimbabwe or something.

Yay for appeals to authority!

Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.

"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."

How is it pseudoscience then? The author clealry states the facts of yeast evovling from multicellular organisms. It may have an advantage and it may not depending on the genes involved. By the way you still didn't answer the question. When did it evolve?

Even if it didn't the last unicellular to multicellular event was only 200 million years ago and if you have ever published anything you would know pnas is not a bad journal especially for certain fields of research but I doubt you have published anything at all in a scientific journal.

How is it pseudoscience then? The author clealry states the facts of yeast evovling from multicellular organisms. It may have an advantage and it may not depending on the genes involved. By the way you still didn't answer the question. When did it evolve?

Did you read the paper at all? Where does Ratcliffe say that Saccharomyces cerevisia have multicellular ancestry?

I never said it was pseudoscience, I said it's bad science. And I did answer it, it was in the quote.

Originally Posted by Pacerlive

Even if it didn't the last unicellular to multicellular event was only 200 million years ago and if you have ever published anything you would know pnas is not a bad journal especially for certain fields of research but I doubt you have published anything at all in a scientific journal.

Even if the last event was 200 million years ago, the gene that expresses for this behaviour could just be inactive.

I never said it was a bad journal. You were the one that put it on a pedestal.

Lynn Margulis is a biologist, are we not talking about biology right now?

Have YOU published anything at all? If you have, then I seriously doubt you would be going around touting that study as if it's the end all and be all of all evolutionary biology studies. There are FAR better studies showing the fickleness of evolutionary timelines.

Lol. You were the one to lump it in to your example of pseudoscience. I didn't use the word you did. To answer your first question its in the last paragraph of the nature article that you didn't fully read. To answer your second question yes I have and to your last point I never put the publication on a pedestal as you say. In fact I made a disclaimer.

If I got published in PNAS I would go on a four day bender of joyous debautchery. That being said just cause something is published in a realY good journal does not mean it is settled science or not controversial. Quite frankly it's often the opposite... really good work that is cutting edge or controversial.

Originally Posted by MrPoon

man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

If I got published in PNAS I would go on a four day bender of joyous debautchery. That being said just cause something is published in a realY good journal does not mean it is settled science or not controversial. Quite frankly it's often the opposite... really good work that is cutting edge or controversial.

I don't think anybody is saying its settled science and certainly it would take longer than 60 days in nature but calling this paper bad science is just silly. It has its caveats which anyone that worked in the field would already know that yeast came from multicellular background. What makes it more compelling is understanding that simple lifeforms often get rid of genetic code that is no longer being used. It happens much faster than more evovled organisms like the blind fish in a cave example used earlier. IF the fish no longer needs eyes then they slowly get rid of them over time.

The same applies to yeast which is why Ratcliffs explanation is not only plausible but highly likely that yeast lost the genetic adavantage to forming multicellular life.